RASHMIBEN KETANBHAI PANDYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Misc. Application No. 12010 of 2019 is filed under Ss. 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No. 2 therein by an order dtd. 1/5/2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1146 of 2019 by the learned Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad, whereby, the learned City Civil Judge was pleased to dismiss the said application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent No. 2 - original accused by way of an order dtd. 1/9/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Court No. 14, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5186 of 2017, for the alleged offence punishable under Ss. 465, 467, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for which, FIR C.R. No. I-110 of 2017 came to be registered before the Maninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad.

(2.) Heard, Ms. Rashmi Pandya, appearing in person and learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani for the Respondent No. 2 - original accused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No. 1 - State.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani for the Respondent No. 2 - original accused while heavily resisting the applications, submitted that these applications are nothing but a revengeful act on the part of the applicant. He submitted that the applicant had no cordial relations with her nearest relatives and family and is in a habit of making false accusations against anyone and everyone. He submitted that from the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the applicant and the Respondent No. 2, it clearly transpires that the dispute is civil in nature, however, it is given a criminal colour. It is submitted that the FIR filed by the applicant herein had completely false and frivolous allegations levelled against the wife of the Respondent No. 2. The allegations made by the applicant included mainly of forgery whereby it was alleged that the Respondent No. 2, in connivance of his wife, had forged the signatures of the applicant and in the said manner they had withdrawn certain sum from the bank account of the father of the applicant and wife of Respondent No. 2. Similarly, a number of false, fabricated and fake allegations were made by the applicant herein against the Respondent No. 2. The allegations of siphoning off the funds does not hold good as a number of withdrawals that the applicant is alleging were made before the death of the father and thereby, the Respondent No. 2 cannot be blamed for siphoning off the funds as the same were under the instructions of the father of the and under his signature. Further, the wife of the Respondent No. 2 herself was the joint account holder and on that count also, such allegations are not tenable.